-If you would like to unsubscribe from the weekly lecture
summaries, please unsubscribe from our Google group or our Meetup group

Tonight
is October 1, 2018 our regular Monday night class. Welcome to all of you here
and hello to those listening by way of the internet or reading this transcript.

As
it’s been going, there’s a lot more blending of the forums that I’ve been
contributing to operating online and this class as well. Before, essentially
this class was the proving grounds for whatever I was going to take with me to different
chapters, lectures and seeing if it would work and what I’m going to put on the
forums. Sometimes, the forum now is sometimes kind of getting ahead a little
bit and there are some good things that are happening on the forum, the WeChat
forum is worth working on here. The difference here is that I have the luxury
of being able to talk instead of type and kind of flush out those discussions
more.

Tonight’s
lecture is going to be one that that is based on some things that I was
discussing online today. What the question came from in part… Well, there were
two questions. The last question was: “When peeling the layers of the self,
what happens to the Seventh Consciousness?”

In
the WeChat forum, I responded “Wu before and Wu after (this emptiness). Self is
an illusion, a temporary smudge on the screen.”

Regardless
of whether we are peeling layers off the Seventh Consciousness, whatever is
doing that, is there before, and there after. The only difference is that there's
some wisdom there that imparts to clearly see those things. Which leads me to a
joke; not quite on point but in which case, there was this one College of
Theology and all the people there were meeting with the Dean.

And
an Angel appeared and said “Because you do good work here and you built this
School of Theology, God has decided to grant you your choice. You have a choice
of infinite money, infinite wisdom, or infinite beauty. So which one will you
take?”

And
all the people were looking at the Dean to see which one he is going to take.
Guessing that he would probably say infinite wisdom right? Because he’s
speaking to an angel, so he said “Infinite wisdom.”

And
the Angel smiled and said “I can so much surmise that that would be your choice.”
So “Phum!” he just kind of flashed his hands over him and he disappeared in a
puff of smoke.

So
everybody was waiting for the Dean to speak because now they know he has
infinite wisdom: “what is he going to say?”

Finally
he lifts his head up and said “I should have taken the money!”

Okay,
I know! (Ha-ha!) It’s a weak joke but I thought it was funny. But in any case, what's
happening with all these is: in our limited wisdom moving towards infinite wisdom,
is we’re beginning to look at things differently. I’ve said a while back that
our practice [at its higher state], the practice of looking into the
self-nature of mind is, you could say “Mind
itself is not a concept,” not a thing; “it is an activity.” It’s an engagement in whatever we’re doing. I've
also said [which is very important], is “one aspect of mind is discernment.” We have to discern what
is there. Now I’m kind of tying in a lot of things that we’ve been talking
about this Summer (now we’re into Fall) but this past Summer, different aspects
of the practice.

One
of them is this idea of perception
and we often get tied up in our perception, and we know that perception is what?

Student:
Empty.

Gilbert:
It’s empty, but that’s the perception of the phenomenal side. The noumenon side,
the matrix of the mind, is that which has its own perception. Not perception in
the way of subject-object, or duality, but it is just simply the perception of
mind and it’s beyond any kind of perception that we could foresee, or think
about, or conceptualize about. It just is there. We cannot use it because it is
like the story I was saying about the scholar telling the Master, “How many
different sutras he had read” as the master was pouring tea into the cup. And
until finally the cup overflows and the scholar tells the Master like “What are
you doing? The cup is full.”

And
that is the classic story saying you know “Well, I can’t put anymore into you
because your cup is full.”

But
Gilbert’s version of that is that the demonstration is that the cup could never
hold what the teapot has. All that’s in the teapot represents the potentiality
of mind, everything in mind is there. But the phenomenal side could not do that
because it is a numerator, not the denominator. And when we look at things in
this way and we realize mind is infinite, there’s nothing that mind doesn’t
touch. So the idea of perception of mind is different than the perception of subject-object
where it’s kind of more like binary switch-on, switch-off type of thing: “I'm
looking at this; now I’m looking at this over here.” One can be engaged in a
discussion with somebody but still, be completely focused about the things
around him without ever looking directly at it. There is just this perception that’s
there. Or it could be, as one progresses in the practice, knowing what’s happening
somewhere else and perceiving that in mind.

And
so as we begin to see things in this way, it changes the way we look at the
world but those types of perception only come with some realizations. They can
be short and very shallow, or they can be very deep and long-lasting, or they
can be deep but short-lasting. There are so many different kinds of realizations.
There’s not just one that you say “Okay, this is it!” and you get the prize.
There’s nobody to get the prize. We just are self-absorbed into mind.

It’s
an interesting thing because we start negating this idea “is it real or not
real? Is this mind or not mind?” What we do is we look into mind, like the
passage of the Surangama
Sutra that’s going to be able to show you how to
practice. It is what I tell you how to practice. It may be a little bit fancier
and in concise language but it is an interesting one. So I copied that or
photographed it and sent it out to the people and the person that asked me
about the question of the Seventh Consciousness went “Woohoo, thanks!” And at
the end of the passage, the very first part it said:

After hearing this, Ananda
and all those present were completely bewildered.

So
here’s the Buddha laying it all out for them and at the end they go “It sounds
so great! Thank you, thank you, thank you!” but they’re all bewildered. They
knew they heard something but they have not been able to figure it out. And
it’s why when somebody had put the part of the Heart Sutra that’s reinterpreted
by Thich Nhat Hanh on there and I asked “What does this mean? What’s the
difference between this one and this one?” What was there? It is significant
because it’s mind-work that Thich Nhat Hanh is doing. He’s looking at this and
proving deeper and deeper and getting it further and using this as a means of what
we call “expedient means” of communicating a manner in which one can have this realization.

So
when he said “Woohoo thanks,” I said to him “What, not bewildered?” like
everybody else.

And
he said very honestly “Very much so!” and then he went on to his Quantum
Mechanics.

But
the thing is, it is interesting because when we get something like that, we
don’t necessarily have to have it where have a complete realization from it but
we look at it and we go “Ah, look! If I keep working on this, this will take me
closer; this is where we go.” Oftentimes, when someone makes a contribution to
the forum, I may say “The path is blocked ahead.” This is the ancient reference
of the old Masters saying like “you can't get there from the way you're looking
at it,” which is generally that person have the viewpoint of self. But other
times, I’ll say [you know] “go this way or follow this path;” meaning that
you're on the right way of how to approach it, which is generally investigating
mind. So when I do that to another person like “walk this way” because it also
says “Take it slow. Don’t get excited, take it slow, walk this way,” meaning
this is how you do it. So it doesn’t what they say word wise. What I’m gaging
is their efforts in contemplation and their sincerity in that.

So
if I asked a question and somebody answers very quickly, then I know there’s
not a whole lot of contemplation there. Every once in a while somebody may have
some kind of a quick epiphany but most of the time, they’re answering out of whatever
is there in their library of knowledge and they haven’t process this through
the wisdom. Wisdom is very important that we should have there. What we're
doing is by contemplating the question, that’s wisdom and that will reap fruit.
And if we are just simply accumulating clever slogans or sayings, then it
doesn’t do us any good. When I am addressing either you, or in a lecture hall,
or online, I never am saying “these are the words that are there.” Right View
has to do with the activity of investigating Chan. That’s important. If you do
not have the Right View, then we're not really [even] at the gate of Chan. With
Right View, that gets us in so we are able to investigate and do that.

Today,
there were many good exchanges there from many of my students that were really
probing and self-correcting at the same time. They’re correcting each other but
in a very mindful way; not to sound intellectual and not to be insultive but
simply these gentle corrections. Most of the time, my corrections are gentle
because that’s all that’s needed. Sometimes when somebody’s way off, I might be
more firm with that so that they know clearly that they need a complete 180
degree turn and move the other way.

That
was the preface to what I was doing but it all kind of fits in and it’s all
part of this lecture of how we do this. If it was just simply in the words, it
would be easy because all I have to do is say “read this” and you’ll get it.
But we can’t do it that way. It doesn’t work that way. This marvelous exchange with the Shakyamuni Buddha
and Ananda and the entourage that are there present is very amazing. But it is
as Michael said “I don't understand it, but it is good stuff. I know it’s
there.”

And
so what’s important for us is to know where, to mind. That doesn't necessarily
mean we will find the gold right away but at least we know that we’re mining
for gold in the place where it could possibly be found. If we’re mining for
gold just simply maintaining the moral precepts, it is not enough. But as some
said “moral precepts are necessary; the paramitas are necessary” but in of
themselves cannot produce a realization. What is required is this contemplation
in the present moment as to what is happening and that’s where you’ll find it.
So we begin:

“Even
if you (succeed in) putting an end to all seeing, hearing, feeling and knowing,
and so preserve inner quiet, the shadow of (your) differentiation of things
(dharma) still remains. I do not want you to hold that this is not mind,but you should examine it carefully and minutely:

This
is very interesting, in a very very subtle way he’s saying. He’s saying whether
it was the seventh consciousness before and after, it is still mind. He’s not
negating it; he’s just saying that you have to examine it so you can separate
out what is the precious metal and the drossthat’s there that burns off. What
burns off is phenomena; it is a shadow, a dream, but we’re searching for this
precious metal. He’s saying like whatever that is, that’s still mind and he’s not
negating it. He’s just telling you where to dig and not be picking up fool’s
gold. He said that you should examine it very carefully and minutely.

that which continues to
possess a discerning nature even in the absence of sense data is real in your
mind;

So
right there he tells you what your mind is. Well, that sounds good but what
does it mean? And he said, and sometimes I say it and repeat it like expecting
I’m going to pull the realization out of it, but I just want you to look at it
so that you can contemplate it, but he says that which
continue to possess discerning nature. So it’s something that possesses a
discerning nature; is aware, it has a perception. It is not the perception of Five
Skandhas type of perception but is something that can discern even when there is no sense data that's
there, that is not clinging to anything: “too hot, too cold, too loud, too few
people, too many people,” too whatever. And all of that stops and a lot of people
what they do is if they end up in a dead cave, they go “That’s it!” That
actually the dead cave is the realization. No, it is not! What you did is you
just turned off all the lights.

But
what’s there, that’s still receiving information…, so if we have a radio receiver
on the moon, nobody was there, all the astronauts had left, the radio receiver
is there and if we’re sending signals there, it could hear it. It could discern
the signal. However, if there are no signals, it nevertheless is still
receiving. There’s just no sense data there for it to receive but its nature of
perception does not expire with the loss of sense data. When the sense data
subsides we know whatever that sense data is, is not the fundamental nature of
mind. It is transitory, phenomenal.

But
that which continues to be there, and I often talk about this because Guanyin
Bodhisattva entered or gained realization by listening to the ocean, and
listening, rises and falls, rise and fall, and there’s times when there’s no
sound but there’s still this capacity to discern – that there’s no sound that’s
there. That is the self-nature of mind. It doesn’t have to cogitate about it, it’s
just there. If the sound comes, it’s aware of it. If it’s gone, it’s aware that
there’s no sound. It's just in this way. That is mind. Saying that cannot give you
a realization, but you contemplating it,
you have a shot at it. When you start contemplating it, that’s how Guanyin
Bodhisattva was able to get to that big Prajnaparamita.

So
then he continues:

… (on the other hand) if
this discerning nature ceases with sense data, this is merely a shadow of (your)
differentiation of them,

Now
he’s talking about the object of the sound [let’s say] and the sense of hearing
that’s there but the two of them are not your true mind. But if there’s awareness
there, that is the true mind. But the one that says “There’s no more sound,”
that’s making a distinction; that’s different. It is not very easy to explain,
and not very easy to do but this is where you dig, right here. Like a treasure
map, the Shakyamuni is putting this big giant cross there, “Dig here!”

Continuing
on:

…
for they are not permanent and when they cease to exist, so does this
(so-called) mind,

So
he’s saying that when they cease to
exist, then this so-called mind ceases to exist. That’s the illusory nature
of phenomena [that we call mind] but it's not really mind.

…
like the hair of a tortoise and the horns of a hare. If your Dharmakaya (mind-ground)
can so easily cease to be, who will then practice and realize the patient
endurance of the Uncreate?”

That’s
why I always say “Who is saying this? Who, who?” You have to be like an owl: “Hoo!
Hoo!” - always bringing that question up. So when you see it, then you begin to
discern that this is just transitory, it’s phenomena that is arising. But if we
dig deep enough, we start hitting something solid. There's something solid
there and that’s the self-nature of mind. It doesn’t go away. The rest of it we
can dig it up and pull it out of the hole and it just loosens up and goes away.
But that, every time we hit it, it is solid. It is there; it is mind. When
we’re clear about it, we’re down to the matrix of it all. It’s there no matter
what.

After hearing this, Ananda and all those present
were completely bewildered.

They’re
going “That all sounded good but I don’t know what it means.”

So
the next part is called:

Refuting all Inversion.

The Buddha said: “Practicing
students, even after they have realized the nine successive states of dhyana,
still cannot step out of the stream of transmigration and so fail to become Arhats,

He’s
saying that even though they’re practicing in certain ways, they still can’t
get out of this stream of samsara and they can’t become an Arhat, which is like
a One-returner, or a no-time returner.

… because they cling to this samsaric false thinking
which they mistake for Reality.

So
if one goes “I want to become enlightened. I want to become enlightened. I’m
almost there, almost there. All my thoughts - almost gone.” All you’re doing is
digging yourself in or throwing yourself into the hole that you’re digging in
and covering yourself with the dirt that you dug out. And you’re like what I’ve said, which I
haven’t said for a while, like the proverbial ostrich digging its head into the
sand and making itself go away totally oblivious to this vast body that they
think that they’ve accomplished something. It doesn’t work that way.

And
he said:

This
is why, though you have heard much (of my Dharma), you have failed to win the
holy fruit.

It’s
because of your false thinking, you mistake that for reality.

Next
part:

The
Inverted Perception

After
hearing this, Ananda, in, bitter tears, prostrated himself with his head, knees
and elbows on the ground, knelt and brought his two palms together, saying: “After
I left home to follow the Buddha, I merely relied on His transcendental power
and always thought that I could dispense with practice since He would bestow
samadhi upon me. I did not know that He could not be my substitute and so lost
(sight of) my fundamental Mind. This is why, though I joined the Order, my mind
was unable to enter the Tao.

So
sometimes when I say “Walk this path,” I’m talking about the Tao. The Tao is
not some ascertainable path. It is the attitude that one is showing and the
spirit in which one is doing it, the Right View that’s present that leads them
there. So wherever they go, it is the Tao. Sometimes, we talk about it as
“Walking in Chan, talking in Chan, sleeping in Chan.” We are with the Tao; our
mind is very quiet.

So
he continues on:

I was like a destitute son running away from his
father. I only realize now that, in spite of much listening (to the Dharma), if
I do not practice it, I shall come to nothing as if I had not heard it, like a
man who cannot satisfy his hunger by merely speaking of food.

So
he was frustrated; he was saying [you know] “If I don’t figure this out, no
matter what I heard, it’s not going to help me.” Or like someone who is a
destitute, and was running away from his father.

Once
in the WeChat forum, one of my students said “We are brothers.”

And
kind of equating the phrase out of Star Wars, I said “No! I am your father!”

Because
it’s not “me” as the actual person is the father, the “Way” it is your Father;
the “Way” is your Mother; the “Way” is the Womb. We have to see it is way; that
what is trying to work through this [in this guise as the numerator] cannot do
it. But it actually is part of the Buddha Clan. It is related to the Father. It
only has to be able to see this into awaken.

We
continue:

World Honoured
One, I am caught by the two hindrances because I do not know the (real) nature
of the still and permanent Mind. May the Tathagata be compassionate enough
fully to reveal to me that wondrous Bright Mind and so open my Tao eye.

So
again, he’s asking him to say the words that would make him become enlightened.

A
Bright Light to Reveal the One Reality

Thereupon
the Tathagata, from the sauvastika on His chest, sent out a radiant
multi-coloured precious Light which illuminated the Buddha lands in the ten
directions as countless as the dust and which, after shining on the heads of
all Buddhas everywhere, veered to Ananda and the assembly. The Buddha then said
to Ananda: “I now hoist the banner of Great Dharma so that you and all living
beings in the ten directions can realize the pure and bright Mind of your
profound and subtle Nature and so win the Eye that is pure and clear.”

So
he’s saying that you can realize the pure and bright mind of “your” profound
and subtle nature and so win the eye that is pure and clear. So he’s saying to
him “this is your mind.” This is your subtle nature. If you realize this, then
mind is pure and clear “to you.” It is that way anyway because of all these
obscurations being attached to this idea of the ego, personality, or life in
being; you can no longer see it. You’re clinging to this idea that there's an
ego. It is the most difficult thing for us to do is pull this off. It’s like barnacles
that are attached to whales and believing that the barnacles are the whale. But
it's not; it is just coursing through there, attached to the whale of infinite mind,
but it's not really the true mind, but it convinced itself that nothing is
going to pry it off of mind. And it is that close, right there; seeing the mind
but not being able to realize it. It is like what Paichang was saying “It was
not until this moment that I realize my nostrils pointed downward.” It is so clear
and evident but because of habitual tendencies, we’ve convinced ourselves that
the barnacle is the whale.

Next
part:

Returning
Perception to Mind

Ananda,
a moment ago you said that you saw my shining fist; tell me, how did its
brightness come about, what caused it to take the form of a fist and with what
did you see it?

Ananda
replied: “The Buddha’s golden hued body is like a precious hill and manifests
(the state of) purity and cleanness, so that the fist shone. It was really my
eyes that saw Him bend the fingers and form a fist which was shown to all of
us.”

The
Buddha said: “In truth wise people should be awakened by examples and
analogies. Ananda, if I had no hand I would have no fist and if you had no
eyes, you would have no (faculty of) seeing. Is there any connection between your
organ of sight and my fist?”

Here,
the very first part is very important because he’s saying that in truth, wise
people should be awakened by examples and analogies. So as Dharma presenters,
we go through all sorts of different things to try to use an analogy of this and
analogy of that, to allow people to become awakened. He’s saying “if you follow
this, you can become awakened.” But the problem is your “self” gets in the way
and then you miss it. You don’t follow what these analogies are that the Buddha
is doing, so to you it doesn't make any sense. He was talking to him about his fist
and making a fist and having the light dazzle from his fist. But he said that
if he doesn’t have a hand, I don’t have a fist and if don’t have eyes, you
couldn’t see it. He’s setting up these analogies that he’s hoping will pay off
for them.

Ananda
replied: “Yes, World Honoured One. If I had no eyes, I would have no (faculty
of) seeing; so there is an analogy between my organ of sight and the Buddha’s
fist.

The
Buddha said: “Your reasoning is incorrect. For instance, a handless man has no
fist, but a man without eyes still has his (faculty of) seeing.

So
what does the man with no eye see?

Student:
Darkness.

Gilbert:
Darkness. He sees it like that.

Sometimes
when I'm at the retreat and people have their eyes closed, I say “When your
eyes are closed, what do you see? And they’re going “???” because they know
it’s a trick question. I tell them “the back of your eyelids;” that’s what
you’re seeing. It’s dark but sometimes you can create yourself some little
patterns and stuff with it but there’s still the sense of seeing even though
the eyes are closed. That is what we’re connecting to; not all these visions
and colors, and swirling lights and whatever [you know]. The 60’s are over; the
little spinning balls are over. So if we’re there and we close our eyes, we
should only see the backs of our eyelids – darkness. So he told him “No,” that
his idea was incorrect.

When
you meet a blind man and ask him what he sees, he will tell you there is
nothing but darkness in front of him. Therefore, though things may be screened
from view the (faculty of) seeing continues.”

So
there’s still this seeing. This is
important thing because who is seeing? Who is seeing? That is the question so
we’ve got to back it all back up and go “Alright, if there’s nothing to be
seen, who is seeing?”

Ananda
said: “If a blind man sees nothing but darkness before him, how can this be
called seeing?”

So
Ananda was saying that if a blind man sees nothing but darkness, how can you
say that this is seeing? He is defining seeing via the idea of a life in being,
of someone that is dazzled by the sensory gates.

The
Buddha asked: “Is there any difference between the darkness seen by a blind man
in front of him and that seen by a man who is not blind when he is in a dark
room?”

Ananda
replied: “World Honoured One, there is no difference.”

The
Buddha said: Ananda, when a blind man who used to see only darkness suddenly
recovers his sight and sees every thing clearly, if you say that it is his eyes
which see, then when a man who saw darkness in a dark room suddenly lights a
lamp which enables him to see what is there, you should say that it is the lamp
that sees.

So
if somebody sees with their eyes, then the seeing is with the eye organ; but
that doesn’t fit. You have to look at it and go “I get this; it’s not in the
eye organ.”

If
a lamp can see things, it should have (the faculty of) seeing and should not be
called a lamp; if it really sees, it has no relation to you. Therefore, you
should know that while the lamp can reveal form, seeing comes from the eyes but
not from the lamp.

So
what do you think about that, seeing comes from the eyes but not from the lamp?
Does that sound right? No? This is the Buddha talking now. Continuing on:

Likewise,
while your eyes can reveal form, the nature of seeing comes from the mind but
not from the eyes.”

So
he's attaching it there and holding it there for a moment and then revealed
that it’s not the eyes that sees; it’s the mind that sees. Whether it’s a man
in a dark room or a blind man in the room that is lit, the nature of seeing comes
from the mind, not from the organ. Next section:

Inverted Men

Although Ananda
and the assembly had heard these words, they remained speechless.

If
you could have followed this and it hit you in the right moment, you’d have
some kind of a realization, but it needs more than that.

As
they did not awaken to the Teaching, they brought their palms together and
waited for the Buddha’s further instruction with their minds set on hearing it.

So
they tried but there’s no contemplation there. He’s telling them that it’s mind;
mind is the thing that sees it but what he’s doing is talking to them about the
perception of mind, not the perception that goes along with the Five Skandhas,
which is different. He’s talking to them about real perception.

The
Worlding's Inverted Views

The
Buddha then held up His shining hand, straightened His fingers to give
(further) instruction to Ananda and the assembly and asked: “After I attained
Enlightenment (Bodhi), I went to Mrgadava park where I told Ajnata-kaundinya
and his group of five bhikus as well as you monks, nuns and devotees, that all
living beings failed to realize Enlightenment and became Arhats because they
were misled by foreign dust which created delusion and distress (by entering
their minds). What at that time caused you to awaken so that you can now win
the holy fruit?”

Ajnata-kaundinya
then rose from his seat and replied to the Buddha: “I am now a senior in the
assembly in which I am the only one who has acquired the art of interpreting
because I had awakened to (the meaning of) the expression “foreign dust,”so that I won the (holy) fruit.

So
his turning phrase is “foreign dust.” He looked at it and contemplated the
meaning of foreign dust. What is foreign dust? By contemplating it, it means
that all of a sudden he begins to realize [in mind] what foreign dust is, as he
begins to see it arising and falling, arising and falling, falling arising.

World
Honoured One (foreign dust) is like a guest who stops at an inn where he passes
the night or eats something and then packs and continues his journey because he
cannot stay longer. As to the host of the inn, he has nowhere to go. My
deduction is that one who does not stay is a guest and one who stays is a host.
Consequently, a thing is “foreign” when it does not stay. Again, when the sun
rises in a clear sky and its light enters (the house) through an opening, the
dust is seen to dance in the ray of light whereas the empty space does not
move. I deduce that that which is still is the void and that which moves is the
dust. Consequently, a thing is “dust” when it moves.”

The Buddha said: “Correct.”

So
this brings me to my question that I posed to the WeChat forum, where I said “Not
a thing is permanent.” True or false? Now, you guys have the benefit of an open
book test, “not a thing is permanent. True or false?

Students:
True. True. True.

Gilbert:
Yes, because you understand that it’s guest-dust; what we call guest-dust
affliction.

So,
not a thing is permanent. So when we come to that point where we say that not a
thing is permanent, then we know because the “thing” is a guest; it’s just
rising and falling. That is essentially the dirt that we have to move out of
the way to get to the gold. What we have to do is look for the gold and see
that. When we can do that, then it will work. When we can’t do that, then we
get confused as to who is the owner of the hotel, because the guest just
decides to stay.

But
if we use the discernment of mind, which is mind itself, that discernment, even
though it is engaged and is active, is nevertheless empty and still. It is real;
it is not false. A “thing” is false but mind itself is there and we have to see
that. It is this awareness at present, this perception. It’s not in a way that
we saw it before. It is the perception that understands things and understands
that things are governed by Paticcasamuppada - causes and conditions never fail.
Mind is not other than that.

I
could go on but I think we’ll stay there because you probably burned your
things out. Any questions? Go ahead.

Student:
Is intuitive with them? Is it a characteristic of mind?

Gilbert:
It is if you don’t call it wisdom.

Student:
Why?

Gilbert:
Because that’s a thing.

Student:
Wisdom is a thing?

Gilbert:
Wisdom is a thing so we have to let that go and say that there’s no characteristics,
just like in the Diamond Sutra where it says that the Buddha can’t be known by
its 32 marks. So there is no wisdom.

If
we start calling it a thing, it won’t work. But it is a component, an element
of the mind seen clearly. When the mind sees clearly, it is simply engaged in
activity to remove whatever illusory suffering is present in it. It wants to
get rid of it like a body with a rash; it wants to take care of that rash. It’s
not covering the whole body, it’s covering part of it and it has an interest in
taking care of it. That activity is mind. It functions in a way where we no longer
call it wisdom, whether it be worldly wisdom, or realized wisdom. Realized
wisdom is like the wisdom of a Bodhisattva moving towards complete enlightenment.
In complete enlightenment there's no wisdom nor any attainment. We can’t know
it by those marks or those names but it nevertheless functions in that way.